The Atheism Thread - Part 5

[SpideyVille]

You weren't bashing anybody, SpideyVille. You composed yourself in a decent manner, and that's all anyone asks.

Cool, you guys seem to be a lot more understand than my family has been in this matter.

If a man was alone on an island with no outside contact, would he come to a knowledge of God?

I've had this thought for a while and I figure this would be a good place to see what others think. But basically in terms of religion, I've felt like part of the reason why some people believe in what they believe in so much, regardless of how devout they are to it, is because its what they were taught to believe in growing up. Like in my mom's case, she was raised Catholic and eventually converted to Christianity, and I often ask her why she believes in what she believes in and why she follows it, and instead of giving me any kind of answer, she just gets defensive and says she believes in God because he's out there, but with no real explanation for why she believes that. I know some people have experiences that make them turn to something, but with a lot of people I know, they usually tend to believe in some kind of higher power being out there, but the name and the religion they choose to believe in is usually based on what they hear about first.

I've always felt that if people were out in the middle of nowhere and never learned to gain a bias over any one religion, that they would struggle to pick one to believe in if they were offered a choice.

 

[Piper Maru]

Sir David Attenborough's view on Science & Religion
[YT]Gfa88SeNohY[/YT]

 

[NateHevens]

If a man was alone on an island with no outside contact, would he come to a knowledge of God?

By alone, do you mean he ends up on the island as a baby (or at least young enough to, when he eventually does grow, not remember actually getting there)?

Let's just ignore the fact that without outside help, he'll die as a baby or small child.

I admit I'm speaking from a point of a lack of knowledge, that I don't of course know that no gods exist, but I also operate under the assumption that they don't, so take what I'm about to say through that context:

We humans created the gods ourselves, so I see no reason why not. When you're trying to make sense of the seemingly non-sensible, the idea of someone else holding all the cards is an attractive thing.

If the man gets lost on the island like in Cast Away, then he'd be taking with him his experiences of wherever he grew up. So he'd be whatever he was before being stranded.

 

[Thundercrack85]

There's a reason a lot of island cultures develop sea and volcano gods.

Religion is just the end result of humanity's attempt to rationalize its surroundings.

 

[Anubis]

Religion is, in it's essence, an evolutionary tool. It's one of those things that's gotten us through the ages. Cuz at some point we figured out that we can only really survive and thrive, in groups. What better way to build teams than belief? We have gotten this far through that age old adage of "Us" vs "Them". It's always worked.

So, if we were to find some lost tribe in the heart of the Amazon, untouched by the outside world, they'd have their own religion, their own moral code, their own myths and explanations for how the world started, why that big fireball sits in the sky, and even why women bleed from their Vajajay for one week out of every month.

The question is, why is that? One could say it's because we're hard wired to believe in a higher power because we're created by a higher power. Or it could just be that good ideas are universal. Like don't touch hot s**t. Put something on when it's cold outside. We survive a lot easier when we work together.

In conclusion, I feel that religion is a communal thing. I doubt one person, all alone with no knowledge of any type of God or God's will come up with their own. But, a group of people? Yes. Yes they would.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, the whole "one person, all alone" thing isn't going to work, since, someone has to raise that baby (in addition to obviously giving birth to it).

Now, you do have feral kids, who were raised by animals, but they're not exactly eloquent. Actually, that would be an interesting study, to see what they believe.

Still without science, or any outside knowledge, I don't see why someone wouldn't try to anthropomorphize natural phenomena (which is where deities come from).

Attributing things to a higher power or force makes a lot of sense if you have no other explanation.

 

[SpideyVille]

I agree, I think religion has many positive benefits to it. In general, I think it is just a more massive and organized way of doing something we all do on our own in some way. At its best, it is meant to inspires people to do more to do the things and live the life that they don't feel like they can on their own. Some people look at religious figures for that, while others look at real people or even fictional ones, like superheroes.

I think religion is at its best when its something an individual uses to unlock the best inside themselves. But when it comes to spreading that, there are some methods that aren't as effective and that's where the problems start.

 

[Siby]

If a man was alone on an island with no outside contact, would he come to a knowledge of God?

We already know the answer to this question by looking at African tribes, and other peoples that are totally isolated from other societies. These societies never develop a monotheistic religion similar to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Like someone else said, primitive cultures use "gods" and "spirits" as explanations for the unknown in their surroundings.

On another note, I just finished my mental health rotation and it really got me to wonder about religious figures. If you view the prophets and religious figures (like the Buddha) of the past as having a mental illness then it really changes the understanding of that ancient world. All of a sudden then the voices of God, seeing angels and signs from God become more natural than supernatural. These people become schizophrenics and other types with psychotic features.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Actually, I believe monotheism is fairly inevitable, as our understanding of the universe increases, the amount of gods we need decreases. Who needs a sky god if they have a basic understanding of meteorology?

Granted, there will probably always be exceptions to the rule (I know someone is going to bring up contemporary polytheistic religion).

 

[DarkSentinel]

You know, I was thinking about this earlier, since I had an argument with my mom last night after she said God was going to punish me for "not being nice" not my niece and nephew, and I told her he wasn't going to because he doesn't exist. But basically, in my experience, I've always seen church goers bring new people in and say that they need to have an open mind. But I realized, especially after the many years I spent in my church, that the same needs to apply to those who already go to church.

I mean, at this point in my life, I don't know what to believe so I don't try to take sides or anything. But I've finally started to see the whole hypocrisy that people show with religion, where they expect you to have an open mind and believe what they believe in, but they immediately expect you to close your mind once you hear "the truth". I think that was definitely the trap I fell into and is why I pushed away a lot of people who didn't believe in the "the truth" that I was told. But it really upsets me how religion is supposed to set us free, but all it really ends up doing is trapping us in a way that makes us hate ourselves after a while.

Exactly how I feel, just from a "theist's perspective". I believe what I believe because I choose to believe it, and I respect others who do likewise, no matter what it is they believe.

So I guess in response to regwec and everybody (by the way hi Reg, hope things are good t:) I couldn't defend my beliefs on a purely intellectual level, simply because I choose to believe. The same way I choose not to believe in Odin, Ra, Zeus, etc. like Mondragon said.

That's all.

 

[regwec]

Actually, I believe monotheism is fairly inevitable, as our understanding of the universe increases, the amount of gods we need decreases. Who needs a sky god if they have a basic understanding of meteorology?

Granted, there will probably always be exceptions to the rule (I know someone is going to bring up contemporary polytheistic religion).

You may have a point, but it tends to be the case that, historically, monotheist religions have come about it in urbanised and bureaucratic societies, while polytheism has been a response to a need to pacify the elements. Hence monotheistic religions tends to be the "book" religions.

Islam is probably an odd exception, being a nativist reaction to Roman and Sassanian cultural expansion. Salman Rushdie's depiction of Allah being chosen as "the" Arab god as opposed to "an" Arab god is quite interesting.

 

[NateHevens]

Exactly how I feel, just from a "theist's perspective". I believe what I believe because I choose to believe it, and I respect others who do likewise, no matter what it is they believe.

So I guess in response to regwec and everybody (by the way hi Reg, hope things are good t:) I couldn't defend my beliefs on a purely intellectual level, simply because I choose to believe. The same way I choose not to believe in Odin, Ra, Zeus, etc. like Mondragon said.

That's all.

Yo!

Did you... um... uh... see this?

Um...

Just wondering...

t:

 

[chaseter]

Science can't and never will be able to explain everything so there will always be an unknown aspect to our world. Filling those gaps with spirits or gods usually is the easiest way to bridge the gap.

 

[redhawk23]

Easy yes, but the easy solution also often represents the lazy one, the convient one rather than the productive or positive.
There are philosophies rooted in epistemologies other than throwing up our hands and submitting to constructions of the supernatural.

 

[NateHevens]

Science can't and never will be able to explain everything so there will always be an unknown aspect to our world. Filling those gaps with spirits or gods usually is the easiest way to bridge the gap.

Forgive me, but this is such an infuriating idea that makes absolutely no sense to me.

I would argue that if you stumble upon a question which science can't answer (and you will, because there are a lot of them), then the question you've stumbled upon is a subjective question, like "who is the greatest guitarist in the world?", or "what is the meaning of life?", or other such questions. These are subjective questions, or questions about the nature of our experiences, which means that they will have individual answers based on individual people.

What you are alluding to, however, are objective questions. These are questions with definitive answers. They are all questions about the nature of reality. Questions like "how did we humans get here?", and "what is the origin of life on the earth?", and "how did the universe get here?", and "is there a god?", and so on. These questions actually have answers. At least one of them we've already answered ("how did we humans get here?"), and at least one other we have a tentative hypothesis "how did the universe get here?"), and I'd argue that another one of the questions I mentioned is perhaps the very reason we have science in the first place ("is there a god?").

I do not agree that there are questions about the nature of reality that science cannot answer. I do think there's a chance the human species may not survive long enough to answer many of these questions, but if it is a question about the nature of reality, it has a definitive answer, and if it has a definitive answer, then I'd argue that science is probably the best tool we have to answer that question.

 

[redhawk23]

In chaseter's defense there are questions such as "what constitutes justice?" that are not the realm of science, but I disagree with the implication that the existence of such questions requires religion to examine.

 

[chaseter]

There's a reason why there has always been some form of religion/belief in spirits, entities, deities, etc. There is a reason why there will always continue to be. Science cannot answer every question or explain every occurrence and will never be able to. We can get closer and closer but to even think Science can or will reach that point is a little over zealous. What Science cannot answer or explain leaves a gap in information. How some people rationalize that is with something unnatural be it a god, spirit, belief, whatever. It's a coping mechanism. Some people cope by making up natural scenarios because they don't believe in the supernatural even though there is no evidence to support that either. Well, that is still a leap whatever you choose to believe. There is no right or wrong until Science can explain that occurrence. So, I am on the pragmatic side of waiting until Science can answer my question. Atheists or theists that pretend like the know with no proof is laughable.

 

[moviedoors]

Some people cope by making up natural scenarios because they don't believe in the supernatural even though there is no evidence to support that either. Well, that is still a leap whatever you choose to believe.

Yeah, and not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

[NateHevens]

In chaseter's defense there are questions such as "what constitutes justice?" that are not the realm of science, but I disagree with the implication that the existence of such questions requires religion to examine.

I'd argue that "what constitutes justice" is a question about the nature of our experiences.

There's a reason why there has always been some form of religion/belief in spirits, entities, deities, etc. There is a reason why there will always continue to be. Science cannot answer every question or explain every occurrence and will never be able to. We can get closer and closer but to even think Science can or will reach that point is a little over zealous. What Science cannot answer or explain leaves a gap in information. How some people rationalize that is with something unnatural be it a god, spirit, belief, whatever. It's a coping mechanism. Some people cope by making up natural scenarios because they don't believe in the supernatural even though there is no evidence to support that either. Well, that is still a leap whatever you choose to believe. There is no right or wrong until Science can explain that occurrence. So, I am on the pragmatic side of waiting until Science can answer my question. Atheists or theists that pretend like the know with no proof is laughable.

Let's start with the fact that neither atheism nor theism having anything whatsoever to do with knowledge. They are about belief, and belief and knowledge are neither the same thing nor even on a continuum. Knowledge qualifies belief. Someone who is an agnostic is still either an atheist or a theist (for example: I'm an agnostic atheist).

With science, I'd argue that the idea that there are questions about the nature of reality that are "outside the realm of science" is itself a laughable idea.

Religion itself qualifies are a failed science, since we created the whole idea of the supernatural in order to explain the natural world (natural weather and disasters were considered to be either the angry or the warring gods; diseases were explained by possession; etc). Then we got natural explanations.

The idea of god has always been a "god of the gaps" thing, and that's actually what you're advancing here. And it's a fallacy.

I should probably reinforce the fact that I'm not arguing that science can answer every question ever. Again, there are two kinds of questions:

Questions About the Nature of Our Experiences
Questions About the Nature of Reality

Questions about the nature of our experiences are inherently subjective questions with inherently subjective answers. So no, science can't answer them.

I'm talking about questions about the nature of reality, here, and science is the best tool we have to answer those questions. In fact, I'd challenge anyone to come up with a better system... then see if you can use it to win $1 million from James Randi.

And there are oh so many questions we have yet to answer. But that's the purpose of science... to try and illuminate the mysteries of reality.

 

[regwec]

"Science" is essentially a description of empirical investigation. In that sense, yes, it can answer everything, because the answers when they come will be the product of science.

It is fair to say that humanity does not yet possess infinite knowledge. I do not understand, however, why the remaining- albeit receding- areas unexplained by science are cited as cause to accept fantasy and fairy tale as an alternative route to enlightenment.

 

[NateHevens]

"Science" is essentially a description of empirical investigation. In that sense, yes, it can answer everything, because the answers when they come will be the product of science.

It is fair to say that humanity does not yet possess infinite knowledge. I do not understand, however, why the remaining- albeit receding- areas unexplained by science are cited as cause to accept fantasy and fairy tale as an alternative route to enlightenment.

Because the religious will do everything in their power to keep their religions alive, even if it means changing the meaning of god so often and so severely that eventually the concept becomes utterly meaningless.

People would rather define God as "that thing over there, whatever it is" than consider the idea that maybe, just maybe, there might possibly be no god at all, and there really is no control over random, unpredictable nature. People don't seem to like the idea that we humans, a mere 7 billion of us traveling on a pale speck of dust in an ordinary solar system on a random arm of an ordinary galaxy, are really only significant to ourselves, and that's it. The reality of our existence, that meaning is pretty much up to us, and when we do finally go extinct (as all species must, eventually), the universe simply won't notice, is terrifying.

Why most people are unable to see the other side of that, that not only are we made of the universe, but in this way, the universe is inside us, is beyond me. We're made out of stars, for freak's sake! That is so much more incredible than any religious myth could ever be!

But for some reason, a lot of people refuse to believe it, despite how amazing it is. They'd rather believe in simplistic yet comforting myths, than actually consider frightening, yet absolutely amazing, reality.

I've always wanted to ask a religious person:

"Isn't this enough? Just this world? Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable natural world? How does it so fail to hold our attention that we have to diminish it with the invention of cheap, man-made myths and monsters?"

 

[childeroland]

Atheist 'mega-churches' take root across US, world

 

[redhawk23]

There's a reason why there has always been some form of religion/belief in spirits, entities, deities, etc. There is a reason why there will always continue to be. Science cannot answer every question or explain every occurrence and will never be able to. We can get closer and closer but to even think Science can or will reach that point is a little over zealous. What Science cannot answer or explain leaves a gap in information. How some people rationalize that is with something unnatural be it a god, spirit, belief, whatever. It's a coping mechanism. Some people cope by making up natural scenarios because they don't believe in the supernatural even though there is no evidence to support that either. Well, that is still a leap whatever you choose to believe. There is no right or wrong until Science can explain that occurrence. So, I am on the pragmatic side of waiting until Science can answer my question. Atheists or theists that pretend like the know with no proof is laughable.

Its a coping mechanism and a common one but that doesn't make it valid. It doesn't mean that sort of an epistemology isn't a problem.

 

[regwec]

Amusing, but not exactly accurate.

Instead of saying "I dunno", the atheist would have some basic arithmetic and may try to get as close as he could to an accurate answer.

The theist would throw a hissy fit, and insist that "4" is taught in schools as an equally valid answer.

 

[NateHevens]

I think the answer is somewhere along the lines of 178,910,723.64382

YAY CALCULATORS!